"I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast."
Viktor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning.
Frankl argued that in freedom is vulnerable to arbitrary whims and the best way to defend against is to be responsible.
That is, and this is my interpretation if your freedom is just a means to an end without a sense of personal responsibility to give meaning to freedom, it becomes pointless to the point of decadence. It leaves people open to a libertine lifestyle. It's nothing more than unprincipled notions.
But good luck reacted such a statue in today's zeitgeist. Especially on the West Coast of the continent.
Accountability and responsibility are the enemies of the ideologue and nihilist.
He introduced dynamic economic policies that were interesting enough to attract the Ontario government.
Trump is proving to be correct in his assessments on the economy and China.
"The Opportunity Zones initiative is an innovative economic development program established in the United States by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.[3] Its purpose is to revitalize economically distressed communities across the country by using tax preferences to encourage long-term private investment in those undercapitalized communities. An estimated $6.1 trillion in unrealized capital gains held by American taxpayers[4] can potentially be leveraged to create economic activity in almost 9,000 areas across the United States designated as “qualified Opportunity Zones.”
Let's leave aside this an utterly useless, inept and arrogant government run by ideologues, the bigger concern is why the government is letting it happen.
There's no reason at all to be letting outside paid protestors (from the U.S. and other parts of Canada namely Ontario) wreak havoc on the lives of Canadians. None. They should be arrested. And if we had true and honourable leadership this would be the case.
The Indigenous and Canadians alike support the pipelines. Canada, after all, still has a substantial natural resources economy.
There's little risk for allowing police to do their work but for some reason, one I can't quite see at the moment, the Liberals under Twinkle Toes aren't acting in the interests of Canada as a whole.
I understand this government signed on to UNDRIP in 2016, but it would be quite a stunning scenario if we've offloaded sovereignty to this UN arm even by illiberal Liberal party standards.
Fact is, Justin put himself in this corner and now can't figure his way out except to say moronic things like 'we're working really hard'. Worse still, as if we haven't seen enough examples of his mendacious arrogance, he shut the Conservatives out (a party that won the popular vote - remember how idiot Liberal voters screamed about this under Harper? How 66% of Canadians didn't vote for him? Funny how they're silent now about that sort of thing because last I checked, Harper never lost the popular vote like Justin did) of a meeting with the Bloc, NDP and Liberals. So in essence, Justin told the majority of Canadians they don't count and to 'kiss my grits, Mel'.
This is how Justin 'brings Canadians together'. By dividing them. And I think people are finally stating to notice. I hope anyway. After November, my faith in the Canadian electorate has never been lower.
Quick word on the Bloc Quebecois. In their shortsighted war against Alberta 'dirty oil' they too are playing a game that in the long-run will only hurt Quebec. Never mind the obscene consequences of their actions is to get their oil from....Saudi Arabia.
In any event, if this is hard work (not that he understands what that even means - as is the case with most limousine liberals in North America - see Warren, Sanders, Obama etc.) then he's better off staying on some Caribbean beach. He's more useful soaking up sun and getting sand in his Speedo.
At least that way we get some entertainment out of it.
In the meantime, people are suffering unnecessarily and this is ALL ON THE LIBERALS. But don't worry, I'm sure the hack army of sowers of discord - led by the shameless and arrogant Rosemary Barton - will spin this in a way to blame....conservatives and racist Canadians.
Don't let yourselves be played Canada. If you must, at least be played by real con masters. At least you can say you were conned by the best. Not one as sophomoric and transparently idiotic as the Liberal party.
Justin Trudeau: Worse than Joe Carter (Joe Clark and Jimmy Carter).
All they're good for is to induce high blood pressure for its own sake.
"As someone who has known what it is to live without freedom, I watch in amazement as those who call themselves liberal and progressive – people who claim to believe so fervently in individual liberty and minority rights – make common cause with the forces in the world that manifestly pose the greatest threats to that very freedom and those very minorities... We need to say to Muslims living in the West: if you want to live in our societies, to share in their material benefits, then you need to accept that our freedoms are not optional". — Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2016.
One of the unfortunate negative impact of environmental extremism is its anti-science stance that sometimes lead to the direct death of people; sometimes in the millions.
An example of this is the (irrational) campaign against genetically modified foods.
So effective it's been it prevented the use of Golden Rice used to treat children with Vitamin A deficiency that often leads to blindness and ultimately death.
Environmental organizations (including the militant Greenpeace) fought against it despite likely knowing this came at a human cost. Which probably was the plan anyway given environmental extremists view humans as the main problem on earth and probably view this as population control by other means.
For over 20 years they prevailed and prevented the use of this miracle rice to be farmed.
On this continent, two traditional parties that have governed along with Republicans and Conservatives have have been driftingly shifting left.
I know on progressive sites the thinking and belief is that the Republican and Conservative parties have gone 'far right' but this is simply not backed up by the facts. And the best way to measure this is through policy and rhetoric.
Through policy examination, it's been discovered by studies from The Economist, Pew and NYT that indeed the DNC has been going left while the Republican party has stayed pretty much in the centre.
On rhetoric, it is abundantly clear the two North American parties have been sounding much more ideological (easily tracing back their ideas to Marxist and socialist tenets - Warren, Sanders, AOC, Trudeau for example hold progressive socialist ideals; not liberal. Still more troubling, when you trace back the roots of these people, they've been basted in a steady diet of far left ideology.
The rhetoric of the Republican and Conservatives is nothing extraordinary. It only became so when the left started to shift the way they loosely define terms like 'racism' and 'misogyny' to the point we pretty much all qualify. Add toxic and divisive class warfare lingo like 'fair share' and 'cultural appropriation' and 'white privilege' it's not very hard to see who are the ones acting like ideologues.
We also see it in the way they treat our collective heritage and history.
They want to rewrite, rework and revise it in their own image. They want to deceive by reinventing the past so they can control the narrative.
This is what 'old dead white men' is all about. It's designed to make us feel guilty and atone for our sins.
This is why, moreover, they protest to remove statues and paintings of historical figures.
They want it all gone.
Except the parts they like. You know, the great minds who invented various medicines or technology they enjoy. Alessandro Volta must be a hero to them but he's a old, dead, white Italian guy. After all, he's the inventor of the battery. And the battery is used to push the electric car. An idea the environmental left, I presume, embrace. Does he get a Hall Pass? Are we going to pick and choose who doesn't get the proverbial reactionary left-wing guillotine?
Their positions is literally an endless pit of contradictions, hysterics, and beliefs system rooted in illiberal ignorance.
They rail and rant against the who we are, where we came from and where we can go.
The left's legacy is one of blood and destruction. From the Jacobins to Bolsheviks and Lenin to Stalin and the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany to Mussolini's Italy to China's Mao and the Great Leap Forward (into death), to the Khmer Rouge to Castro's Cuba to various dysfunctional left-wing guerrilla groups across Asia and South America right up to Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela.
This is their legacy.
Theirs to own and choke on their own misery on.
How many examples do we need?
Oh. Scandinavia you say? Yeh well, those countries aren't anywhere near as socialists as the North American left want to believe. The problem is, the Nordic model is extremely pragmatic and open to free enterprise.
The academic left here are hostile to it.
In their minds, businesses exploit and therefore the government must plunder and exploit it in return is basically their philosophy.
For the people.
Like Chavez did.
From 'soak the rich' to the term '1%' to the idea billionaires 'don't make money, they take it' these are all vapid left wing terms designed to foster class warfare.
Some are foolish enough to believe it while I fear too many do it on purpose.
Since 2015 (the election of Trudeau) and 2016 (election of Trump), the left have gone absolutely bat shit bonkers.
They've completely lost their rational bearings and have been pulling the parties they support down with them.
Everything they touch turns to soot.
And the absolute worst kind of socialist is the Caviar socialist; the limousine liberal.
You Mike Bloombergs, Al Gores, Barack Obamas, Justin Trdueaus and Elizabeth Warrens of this world.
If you think they're gonna stop eating angus beef for the environment you're slow at the switch.
They want you to save the environment.
That means you will have to do it with more taxes and less prosperity.
But don't mind them as they hop on their private jets to Tahiti to meet up with other fake socialists from around the world to come up with more plans to fuck you over.
There have been so many examples on display in the past few years pointing to their hypocrisy and lies.
They do an awful lot of yapping about decorum but act like boorish buffoons any chance they get. They claims when they 'go low we go high!' but in realty they go lower. It's Hilary's specialty.
They want civil discourse but when you watch MSNBC or CNN you see a naked hate for others that is so palpable it's thoroughly downright creepy.
What about Fox? I don't see Fox stopping to the levels of Don Lemon and Rick Wilson just did.
But when I saw Nancy Pelosi rip up the SOTU speech, it was the final cherry on the cake.
A more shocking display of disrespect for a nation and people than that you can't get.
No one is saying you have to agree with what was presented by Trump. SOTU addresses have become noting more than a chance for Presidents to embellish accomplishments used as a way to campaign. Everyone knows that so you take it for what it is.
But the human interest stories are always interesting and always a reminder that the people are the nation. Not the politicians in Congress - or Parliament.
These politicians think themselves as damn masters and I hope we continue this progress towards reversing this trend to remind them they serve the people.'
When Pelosi tore it up I saw an 80 year-old acting like a child.
She and her miserable faux-righteous cohorts in the DNC are so filled with irrational hate of one man she didn't realize she was tearing up just a Trump speech. She was tearing up all the men, women and children of all backgrounds and races to their faces. From the military veteran to the Border Patrol agent to the Mueller family. Did anyone notice how the women in white and good chunk of Democrats rarely applauded or stood for good news and stories all decent humans capable of setting differences aside can applaud? They looked like a bunch of sour dopes.
When the President says he wants to protect the Second Amendment theres' nothing radical in that. It's upholding the Constitution. But yet, they sat on their hands. What are people to conclude from that?
Another example is when Trump accurately recounted how unemployment for all Americans - including blacks and Hispanics - are historic lows. They didn't not applaud. If it's true, shouldn't they be happy? Trump wants to give school choice to families. They didn't applaud. Mostly because stye care more about the unions than families. When he mentioned the killing of two monstrous terrorists again they did not applaud.
These are issues everyone should get behind. What's their problem exactly?
This is what I mean by dishonourable and disrespectful.
Pelosi acted like a toddler who didn't like what she heard and decided she was going to have a tantrum. Like a child who refuses to leave daycare and attempts to bully their parents.
There were several tender moments throughout that SOTU including when the soldier surprised his family at the end. Everyone stood and applauded. Pelosi stood and clapped too but she kept looking down on at her damn notes as she did throughout the speech. She wasn't in the moment. She was looking at how to stick it to the President. A clearer example of her lack of class and dignity I can't think of. It was a completely inappropriate and nauseating performance on her part.
It's worth mentioning she ruled over San Francisco. A place that has gone to hell from people shitting on the streets, to unaffordable housing (thanks to excessive government intervention), and homeless people accosting business owners. It's currently run by a DA with obvious Marxist upbringing and beliefs who has ordered police to not prosecute crimes.
What do you think will eventually happen when the people feel sufficiently threatened and thoroughly disgusted? They're going to turn to vigilantism. They're going to go back to the good old days when the mob offered protection. You can't turn a lawful society into a lawless one and expect to advance a civilization. You will destroy it.
Pelosi and her ilk are why San Francisco falters.
When I see a Canadian Minister like Guilbeault go on TV and essentially call for the throttling of free speech without wearing a tie, I see dishonour and disrespect. When Trudeau and the Liberals refuse to answer questions, I see dishonor and disrespect.
Stand up and be men and women. Not arrogant cowards.
These are the faces of the Liberal and Democrat parties.
Shriners
War Amps
Salvation Army
Montreal Children's
National Firearms Association
Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Canadian Federation of Independent Business
I've also given in the past to:
Reason Magazine
Le Quebecois Libre
I'm considering adding to the list:
Canadian Civil Liberties Union
Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
The last two because I've grown extremely concerned with what's going on in Canada under this government of ideological louts.
If you are too this is one way to get involved. Support the people who fight the good fight.
Roman historian Tacitus said: "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws". Cicero added: More laws, less justice. For years all I heard was how Harper was 'destroying Canada'. But that was all hyperbole. He never remotely came close to doing what Justin Trudeau and his band of sowers of discord have been up to. Particularly where matters of free speech and expression are concerned. What's that saying? If it quacks like a duck, squeals like a pig....time to play the banjo. Something like that. He's up to no good.
Just in case you weren't convinced where this government's head is, here's another example of its troubling fetish for curbing and censoring speech.
Already the media was given an absurd taxpayer funded bail out - remember they believe we're all too stupid to not be able to 'weed out fake news'. Apparently, the only good news is CBC government Pravda news - from Justin now they're exploring an even dumber if not more troubling option.
One where the government would demand media sites get a license to operate here.
Basically, this will end up in one place: With Canadians not having access to international (ie American) opinions, journalism and other media because America media outlets won't play this racket.
People who voted for this buffoon are going to have played their part in his latest obscenity.
Before I go on. The Heritage Minister is Steve Guilbeault. He comes with all the usual decorations and awards bestowed upon activists but for me he's the the eco-militant who scaled the CN Tower in 2001 unveiling a banner that read 'Canada and Bush Climate Killers'.
It's not surprising our commie clown PM appointed another commie clown as a Minister.
His body language reveals a sense of oppositional defiance and strange (blinking) ticks while sporting unprofessional attire. His explanations were poorly articulated and only magnified the preposterous censorious proposal.
Would it have killed him to wear a tie? What's happening in Canada?
What I got from this:
1) The Liberals wants to dictate to streamline companies where the put their revenues. In this case, they want to bully them into paying for 'Canadian Content'. Apparently, international companies are supposed to pay their 'fair share' into our cultural heritage. The delicious irony is we're asking the Americans to help subsidize our content - a nation shallow Canadian nationalists and even misguided Canadians love to bash and engage in anti-American rhetoric.
Then they wonder why I don't take my country seriously.
I ask more directly: How is it their responsibility to do their 'fair share' on maintaining Canadian content?
2) The Minister, taking a cue from his boss, is not telling the truth. A company like Netflix won't pay for squat. They're going to pass that on to the consumer - you and me. It will be a tax by other means.
But don't expect a left-winger to be honest about that because leftists like this guy don't believe your money belongs to you. It belongs to to him to fund his pet projects under the guise of 'Canadian heritage'.
3) Guilbeault's explanation was unconvincing and sophomoric. I know shocking.
His 'we're asking' and it's 'fair share' translates into 'do as we say or else'. Of course creators and CanCon are going to like this. It's free money for them as opposed to going out and putting out content we actually like or want. They're basically saying we can't compete with the United States.
This could lead to the government, to the extent they'd be committed to it. blocking sites who don't play along or sign up for a license. That means, as mentioned, a giant chunk of the media and entertainment we consume from the United States.
4) Can you guess who does this? The EU is a good example but if you guessed China give yourself a pat on the back.
The difference is the Chinese authoritarian government built their infrastructure and so have the means to throttle and censor (control) the flow of information and opinions. In the West, the free market and entrepreneurship set it up so controlling it is a lot harder unless the government flat out takes it over. The resources needed for this would be enormous. There are all sorts of 'backdoor' ways to circumnavigate whatever it is these buffoons are up to. If this government thinks I'd stand idly by watching my civil liberties being eroded, they truly are totalitarian in their stupidity.
You have to be one gigantic useful idiot to actually believe there's any good that can come of this.
That I'm even typing and discussing this in Canada is outrageous onto itself!
Every single day I look in disbelief at what's governing this country.
The Democrat field is so wonky and whacky a candidate like Mike Bloomberg starts to look pretty good.
I'd be careful with that.
A politician with a God complex is a toxic brew.
'Little Mike' is a walking Napoleonic Complex onto himself. Like Trump he doesn't have to answer to anyone but himself. He doesn't have to be a good soldier to strengthen the power of the party. Who knows what a lot of these positions really think but with Bloomberg we don't have to guess.
He's in it to funnel power into his own image. He doesn't need to help the Democrat party. He can use (and hopefully waste) his own money.
He's a no-shit wannabe tyrant.
He exudes it.
They say Trump is the same but he hasn't govern in a manner that curbs a person's free will or choice. In fact, he sides with policies that tend to give power back to the people be it through school choice or prison reform.
Bloomberg is into social engineering as his arrogant soda bans showed. He doesn't give a lick of shit about the poor - and by poor anyone below billionaire status.
Hey Mike. You want gun control? Start by disarming your private security detail.
Ah but his laws aren't meant for him. They're meant for them.
Oh. I'd also be careful with the potential for conflicts of interests between Bloomberg News covering politics and their boss. If this was Trump, something tells me the demand would be for him to divest of such a connection.
But Mike bats for team blue. So it's all good.
Nanny Bloomberg knows what's good for you and god dammit he's going to force you peasants to eat your broccoli if he has to come there and force feed it himself.
While the above is quite funny, there's still the need to keep perspective and understand what people like Grandpa Gulag believe and espouse is really not that funny.
It's astonishing to me how illiberal ideas and economic illiteracy has so much support in America and by extension North America and still further out in Europe.
And the ignorance.
It's unacceptable considering the literature that's out there.
Take their stance on Scandinavia. They claim that Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Denmark (Finland is not Scandinavian but it is part of the Nordic region) are examples of 'common sense' democratic socialism at play but they be half right - or half wrong.
It's true those countries offer a generous and luxurious welfare and social safety net to their citizens. They pay for it, in part (but mostly), through high taxes. In the case of Norway, oil money kicks in a nice chunk. Ironic, no?
But here's the part the left either don't know or won't say (I'm betting it's both), those places aren't hostile to free market principles and capitalism as a whole like Sanders and intellectually remedial lunkheads like AOC are.
The truth is, Scandinavia is far less regulated than the USA (and Canada) is.
Here, Scandinavians understand and accept the reality of things and life. Don't disrupt an economic eco-system that helps to provide and pay for all the welfare bestowed upon people.
Business and entrepreneurship create wealth and prosperity on many levels it's mind-boggling this has to not only be reminded and reiterated but strenuously argued about given the vociferous and spectacular stupidity of the modern North American left where matters of finance, business and economics are concerned.
No AOC you moron, we don't need a 'conversation' on the Modern Money Theory because that has been thoroughly debunked and dismissed by just about any economist or public intellectual worth their salt for well over a century.
You can't just print money to pay for 'free shit'. That's how you end up with, well, South America and Venezuela in particular. That continent hasn't quite figured it out as the romanticism of the scourge that is socialism continues to grip their psyche.
AOC and Sanders add up to misery and death.
They're a dime a dozen where the dust bin of history is concerned. Noting they say is unique or remotely practical. It's been tried and done and done and tried.
Pick your spot.
The difference between North American leftists and Scandinavians is the former foolishly believes in wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want the welfare infrastructure and they want to hamper business and control capitalism. They want medicare for all, free tuition and a GND but at the same time want a heavily regulated business structure that serves the state. What of other nations in the EU and Canada who do provide for it?
Have you seen Canada's demographics, high public debt and somewhat lethargic growth rates? While Canada isn't quite as bad as the USA and Europe on costly and inefficient bureaucratic red tape, it's still not very good. The unfunded liabilities for our health care system is the elephant in the room no one wishes to speak about.
It won't and can't work.
That's socialism/communism by other means and is condemned to fail.
If they want it, they can go live in places that accept such dark and envious fallacies.
Don't let them crash our prosperity like suicidal kamikazes. We can face our problems and imperfections within our liberal framework and traditions.
But first, rejecting socialism and communism is a requirement as it impedes progress; it does not advance a civilization.
I think the average person understands this.
Now we just need to make sure the generation we've failed with false historical narratives get the message.
I read this report titled, "Canada's Communications Future: Time to Act." We always have to act....Now. Save the children. Save the planet. Save it all! Time to act! I digress. It's a paper explaining what Canada has to do in the Internet Age where communications is concerned. Of course, there are organizations who just love the judgement of panels of experts. “SOCAN has long advocated that the government introduce legislation that will ensure all content providers, including internet giants, offer significant levels of Canadian content in their catalogue, contribute to the creation of Canadian content, promote this content and make is easily accessible on their respective platforms,” said Eric Baptiste, CEO of SOCAN. “We sincerely hope all parties will work together to support new legislation designed to strengthen copyright and cultural industry protection in Canada and increase and promote Canadian content. Streaming services have been great additions to the Canadian landscape, but they could contribute even more to building more Canadian choices and international audiences.”
Know what I think? I want the best. I don't want a whiff of 'Yeh this Canadian is praised and given awards by the Canadian arts establishment but how much is it really deserved? How would they stack up on a world stage?'
Did famous Canadians who made it in the USA and internationally need SOCAN?
Or were they so talented so as to transcend schemes and had something people really wanted and they delivered?
And this is what it is. A nationalist scheme. It's basically saying to a Canadian, 'you're not good enough but we'll force people to consume your work.'
It's a quota system and a type of affirmative action.
Affirmative action says to a minority, 'you're too dumb that's why we need to give you a break and to assuage us of our white liberal guilt.'
Another variation of this is the CFL's U.S. import rule. The thinking is to leave roster spots for Canadians because.....Canadian. Quality ain't got nothing to do with it.
And guess what? The product suffers. If it's in place, that means U.S. born players are better. The answer is to, you know, do better. But instead, we dilute the product for empty nationalist reasons.
This is why, in part, the CFL is not a league the hard core football fan supports. I say in part because there's also the fact Canadians aren't the most dedicated of sports fans outside hockey.
In addition, there's the usual thinly-veiled inferiority complex to America in all this. On the surface, it sounds great but when you ponder it you're accepting that a) Canadians don't succeed because of Americans and b) Canadians can only succeed through superficial means.
That being all said, none of this is rooted in a value ALL humans cherish deep down: MERIT.
A true sense of personal achievement does wonders for the soul.
Getting awards you don't deserve? Say like a Nobel Peace prize despite being a war-mongering hack with a dysfunctional and violent foreign policy?
I can't imagine Barry looks at the Token prize and says to himself, 'I did good. I merited that.'
If he does, he's a delusional narcissist who accepts deception as a form of truth.
****
But the contents of the position taken leaves me concerned. I see what the EU has done (and is doing) to content and matters of free speech. Notably, they're increasingly crushing it and I can see Canada following less the lead of the United States (the correct stance) and more the European model - the incorrect one.
How are we assured this won't lead to censorship or the 'shutting down' of media outlets the government deems 'wrong think'?
For example, if my position is I think the CBC should be privatized and I blog or go on Youtube to express this opinion, will this be considered 'fake' or 'harmful'? I don't read the CBC because it doesn't conform to my political and philosophical outlook and will express my opinion freely. So why is it 'fair' to tax me? What's to say a government or 'panel of experts' won't deem this to be 'harmful?"
This reminds me of the specious logic whereby one asserts, 'freedom of speech ends at one's offence'. A terrible trend in the notion of what is freedom of expression and opinion these days I say.
Moreover, given the natural disposition of the current government to lean against individual liberty, this causes me as a private citizen some to be skeptical.
I don't generally always agree with Rebel Media but I see what's going on there with how the government is using its agencies in an attempt to bully them - with tax dollars.
This is inappropriate and if true, completely unacceptable wholly incompatible to Canada's ostensible commitment to democracy and freedom.
I feel compelled to actually become engaged because I am troubled by recent developments in this country since 2015.
Canadians can be pretty apathetic but I would hope in matters of free thought we'd be a tad more vigilant.
On their terms on on the subjects they choose of course.
So let's have a conversation.
Time to revisit and rethink the indecent and foul manner in which Roe v. Wade triumphed.
The lying and deceit used by those women lawyers (who thought little of exploiting poor and vulnerable women to push a dark agenda) are tactics we see used agains the Second Amendment. Think 'well-regulated militia' as disingenuously used as a claim the Founders didn't intend for individuals to use guns. Which of course is a complete and utter lie. They absolutely intended for citizens to have the right to bear arms.
I notice that SCOTUS was made up of men in that 7-2 verdict. I wonder if feminists who fight the patriarchy noticed.
In addition, 60 million abortions? How is this not a form of genocide? I reckon there's some serious strong entrenched interests in wanting to keep the murdering going. Planned Parenthood and population control eco-activists for starters.
"Recalling a scene from the famous 11th-century poem "The Song of Roland", in which Christians in Spain threatened Muslims "to choose between baptism or death", Pope Francis recently said, "We must beware of fundamentalist groups; each (religion) has their own. Fundamentalism is a plague and all religions have some fundamentalist first cousin". Except. Um. I musta missed the part where Christians in North and South America and Europe and in places like the Philippines and other Asian nations with large Christian populations are, you know, murdering Muslims, blowing up buildings and engaging in terrorist activity that is almost exclusively a Muslim issue. Not only is Islam at war with itself (Sunni v. Shia), it also is at war with Judaism and Christianity. True, there were bloody sectarian fights between Catholics and Protestants in places like Ireland and Scotland but that was more an exception than anything. The Commie Pope's use of The Song of Rolland is bizarre because the song was used to depict - inaccurately - events at the Battle of Ronceveaux Pass (Roncesvalles) in Carolingian France in the 8th century during the reign of Charlemagne. A battle where the Franks, the poem's plot claims, are battling the Muslims in Spain who are invaders s on their lands. 'Baptism or death' in this context doesn't seem so bad now, right? The song was also used during the First Crusade and it's here he attempts to draw a parallel - along with the Spanish rightfully expelling the Moors from their land - with modern Christian fundamentalism. Except modern Christian fundamentalism doesn't quite have the same vicious violence of modern Islam. His comments brings back memories of Obama also inserting a facile and superficial 'yeh but the Crusades' part of history. Nice little deceit employed by the Pope. Which may as well since the Song of Roland was mostly myth because it was actually the Basques Charlemagne was fighting in order to prevent their entry in France from the Pyrenees. So he wasn't even fighting Muslims.
It just goes to show how much Christianity has evolved if people have to go this far back into history. And when they settled on a story, the choose one rooted in mythology.
We're talking the Middle-Ages here. A dizzying period where romanticism and myth collided with a civilization in its infant stages of entering the modern era. It's, well, complicated. Which is why it's nauseating to listen to leftists speak of this period to score their cheap political points.
And even then, the Crusades were defensive in nature given that from the 9th century on Islam was on the march and seeking conquest in Europe.
Does the Pope actually believe Christians had no right to defend themselves and go out and recapture the Holy Land of Jerusalem? Does he expect us to accept Spain had no right to La Reconquista?
Has the Pope spoken out at the persecution and murders of Christians in Africa and Asia?
Truth is, the values - and liberal doctrines that grew from - of the Judeo-Christian religions and traditions are far more progressive and enlightened to Islam.
From the treatment of women and gays, to the concepts of rule of law, private property and liberty to liberal free thought and expression, is there no doubt Christianity has evolved and aged much better?
I'm Catholic and I don't accept this Pope's penchant for apologies and tiresome specious analogies to history.
